Book 5 / Chapter 7
Paragraph 2 - The Distinction Between Justice and Injustice
Explanation - Part By Part
"There is a difference between the act of injustice and what is unjust, and between the act of justice and what is just; for a thing is unjust by nature or by enactment."
Aristotle is pointing out an important distinction here. He is essentially saying that we need to differentiate between something being inherently unfair or wrong ("unjust") and the actual action of committing an unfair or wrong deed ("act of injustice"). The idea is that "what is unjust" refers to the quality or characteristic of something being unjust—whether it is unjust by nature (naturally wrong, like harming someone) or unjust by human laws and agreements (such as breaking a specific law). On the other hand, the "act of injustice" refers to the moment someone actually does a thing that is unjust. Similarly, for justice, there is a difference between the ethical principle of what is fair and good versus the actual act of delivering or pursuing fairness. This distinction acknowledges that an unjust thing exists conceptually even before someone acts on it.
"This very thing, when it has been done, is an act of injustice, but before it is done is not yet that but is unjust."
Aristotle is drawing a distinction between what is inherently unjust (a concept or potential action) and the act of injustice (an unjust action that has actually occurred). In simple terms, something can be considered unjust in nature or by rule, but it doesn’t become an act of injustice until someone actually carries it out. Before the action happens, we can label it as theoretically unjust or wrong, but it only becomes an "act of injustice" once it is done or realized in practice.
This distinction is important because Aristotle is trying to analyze justice not just as a concept or rule, but also as it manifests in human actions and behavior. Essentially, he is showing the gap between the potential for wrongdoing and the actual execution of wrongdoing in reality.
"So, too, with an act of justice (though the general term is rather 'just action', and 'act of justice' is applied to the correction of the act of injustice)."
In this part, Aristotle highlights a subtle distinction in terminology related to justice. He notes that the term "just action" is a more general way to refer to any act that aligns with justice or fairness. However, the phrase "act of justice" is more specific and typically refers to acts that correct or address an instance of injustice. Essentially, while all "acts of justice" are a type of "just action," not all "just actions" are about rectifying wrongdoing—they might simply be actions that uphold fairness or follow proper laws. This differentiation lays the groundwork for exploring the broader and narrower applications of justice in human behavior.
"Each of these must later be examined separately with regard to the nature and number of its species and the nature of the things with which it is concerned."
Aristotle is essentially saying that justice and injustice, as broad concepts, have different "types" or "species" that need to be studied individually. He's pointing out that both just actions and unjust actions operate in different ways and involve various circumstances or categories, and these categories deserve closer, separate analysis.
In other words, not all forms of justice and injustice are the same—they vary depending on the context, the action, and the principles involved. To fully understand these ideas, Aristotle plans to break them down later into their specific kinds and explore the characteristics and situations associated with each. It's like saying, "We can't just treat all justice or injustice as one thing; there are different forms of it, and we need to go deeper to understand them properly."